CODENET - Mid Term Review Jan. 2000 - Meeting & Report



        See also
        • Agenda for workshop on Saturday
        • Agenda for the review meeting on Sunday
        • Map of S. Kensington
        • Short report of what happened and notes on the training session


        "For each network contract exceeding ECU 0.75 million in value, the Commission will conduct a mid-term review, in which the implementation of the contract will be assessed, in particular its training and networking aspects, the structure of the network and the contractÕs work programme will be reviewed and, if necessary, contract modifications defined. Networks which are judged by the Commission to have performed unsatisfactorily in the mid-term review may have their contracts terminated". extract from the contract

        The following arrangements for the review have now been agreed, between the EU, the external referee, and myself as co-ordinator (following consultation with everyone else)

        Date: The review meeting will take place on Sunday 30th January
        Place: The Natural History Museum, London
        Independant expert reviewer: Prof Guy-Ohlson (Stockholm)
        Project Officer from the EC: Jane Shiel

        Saturday 29th Jan CODENET WORKSHOP - overview of progress, special sessions on Lisbon Cruise, identification of priorities for the next year.
        Sunday 30th Jan FORMAL MID TERM REVIEW MEETING (see below) - followed by party (Brunette's suggestion) I am booking a Thames Boat for this, you are welcome to bring guests/invite any family or friends you have in London, but please let know in advance, cost will be about 15-20pounds each (discounts available if this is a problem).
        Monday 31st Jan TRAINING SESSION - developing and funding research projects and careers. This is primarily for PostDocs, sessions will be by various people from the NHM and the Network (offers of contributions are welcome).


        ACCOMMODATION

        Queen's Gate Hotel
        54 Queen's Gate
        London SW7 5JW Tel.0171-225-3445

        Prices are 50GBP for a single room or 60GBP for a double room. The price includes continental breakfast and all rooms have their own bathrooms. For London this is reasonably close to a bargain rate, so Markus and I did go round and make sure the rooms looked OK. They seemed civilised to us.
        To keep things reasonably simple we will handle the room bookings. Please just email Jeremy and say which nights you want accommodation for. (Paying for the hotel will be your own responsibility). Unless you say otherwise we will assume that you want to share. We expect most participants to arrive on the Friday afternoon and leave on Sunday evening or Monday evening but it should be no problem to stay longer if you want.


        GETTING TO THE NHM

        The Natural History Museum is easy to find and get to. From Heathrow Airport the simplest, cheapest and usually quickest option is the Underground; Picadilly Line to South Kensington. From there it is a five minute walk to the museum, and the hotel.
        From Gatwick Airport take the train to Victoria then Underground (District Line) to South Kensington.
        From either airport allow about 1 hour to get from the airport to the museum. See map for directions to get to the hotel and museum. At the museum enter by the regular vistors entrance and go to the reception desk to ask for the meeting.

        Guidelines for the Agenda and Participation in the
        MID-TERM REVIEW MEETING

        From the Mid Term Review Manual

        The agenda and list of participants must be agreed with the Commission at least two months before the date of the meeting. The meeting will require one full day.


        AGENDA
        1. Introduction: A short introduction by the Commission representatives, who will chair the meeting.
        2. Coordinator's Report: A presentation by the Coordinator, lasting typically one hour, of the network and of the mid-term review report. The presentation should cover the following:
          • the scientific, technological or socio-economic reasons for carrying out research in the field covered by the network;
          • the research objectives of the joint work;
          • scientific highlights of the work so far;
          • the methodological approach and work plan;
          • how the network functions and how the partners collaborate;
          • connections to industry;
          • the training programme;
          • use of the budget;
          • any proposed revision to the contract.

        3. Tour de Table: Each scientist-in-charge should present in up to 5 minutes the role and contribution of his research team. Each task leader should similarly present the role and contribution of his task to the overall project.
        4. Young Researchers' Reports: Each young researcher should be allowed up to 10 minutes to present himself, his work and his experiences.
        5. Open Discussion: The discussion will concentrate on identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the network, particularly in relation to the organisation of the joint research and to its training programme. Possible revisions to the contract will also be identified and discussed.

      PARTICIPANTS
      The following persons are expected to participate in the meeting:
      • the network coordinator,
      • each scientist-in-charge
      • the task leaders,
      • all young researchers currently being financed
      • the Commission representatives.


      My Comments
      General: This should be straightforward to implement. Participants should note that we will have a large number of short presentations, these do require careful preparation. As ever a slide projector, overhaed projector, and if required a video projector ("beamer") will be available.

      Research Tasks: the specimen agenda suggest separate time slots for task based presentations. I do not think that 15 separate presentations on the Research Tasks would make sense so instead I will allocate them between participants to cover in their presentations (details to come) Accomodation etc. Not arranged yet (mid. Nov), we will work on it in December.


      Guidelines for Preparing the
      THE MID-TERM REVIEW REPORT

      From the Mid Term Review Manual

      For each young researcher appointed with network funds, provide the following information in tabular form: name, nationality, age at time of appointment, start and likely end date of appointment, category of researcher (post-doc, pre-doc mentioning if undertaking PhD studies), scientific speciality, place of work, country of work, and whether the researcher had previously worked or studied at another network partner
      PART A - RESEARCH RESULTS
      A.1 Scientific Highlights
      Describe (preferably in no more than 5 pages) the scientific highlights so far of your network project. Explain whether the project has already advanced the international state-of-the-art.
      A.2 Joint Publications
      List, in order of importance, all joint publications (involving at least two network partners) directly resulting from the activities of the network. Attach an abstract of these publications, where available, in an annex. Indicate whenever one of the network young researchers is named as an author.
      PART B - COMPARISON WITH THE PROJECT PROGRAMME
      B.1 Research Objectives
      State whether the research objectives, as set down in the project programme of contract, are still relevant and achievable. If not, explain why.
      B.2 Methodological Approach and Work Plan
      Has the methodological approach changed from that described in the contract? If so, how?
      Using charts and diagrams only, illustrate how the joint programme of work is broken down into tasks and which teams are involved in each task. Explain any significant differences from the work plan envisaged in the contract.
      B.3 Schedule and Milestones
      Compare, using charts and diagrams only, your current schedule and milestones with that envisaged in the contract. Explain any significant differences.
      B.4 Research Effort of the Participants
      Compare, in tabular form, the professional effort that each team has so far contributed to the joint programme of work against that foreseen in the contract. Explain any significant variations.
      B.5 Cohesion with Less Favoured Regions
      Are any of the network partners from less favoured regions of the community? If so, explain the efforts that have been made to integrate them into the project.
      B.6 Network Organisation and Management
      Describe, using charts if appropriate, how the network is being co-ordinated. Give details of any network newsletters, databases, home pages ...
      List all major network meetings, workshops, etc. with an outline for each of the purpose of the event, the number of network partners represented and the overall numbers attending (two to three lines per meeting is sufficient).
      B.7 Connections to Industry
      Describe the involvement of industry in the network. List all companies that have had a meaningful interaction with the network, explaining in each case the nature of that interaction (information exchange, participation in meetings, involvement in the training programme, possible exploitation of results ...). Explain any significant changes in the involvement of industry from that foreseen in the contract.
      PART C - TRAINING
      C.1 Employment of Young Researchers
      Summarise the number of young researchers (in man-months) whose employment has so far been financed by the contract and compare it with the overall deliverable specified in the contract.
      C.2 Training Programme
      Describe the training programme of the network, in particular the methods by which young researchers are integrated into the internationality of the network, the multidisciplinarity of the research project, the complementarity of the partners and, where relevant, connections to industry
      C.3 Factual Information on the Young Researchers
      PART D - SKETCHES OF THE YOUNG RESEARCHERS
      For each of the young researchers who will present their experiences at the Mid-Term Review Meeting, provide a maximum 25 line description of the young researcherÕs scientific background, of his responsibilities in the network and of his experiences (positive and negative) to date. These sketches should be written by the young researchers themselves.
      PART E - NETWORK FINANCING
      Compare, in tabular form, the expenditure to date of each network partner (an estimate will be sufficient) with the allowable costs foreseen in the table following the signatures in the contract. Also estimate a breakdown of the total expenditure to date by the network into the cost categories A, B, C and D. Explain any substantial differences from the rates of spending originally foreseen
      PART F - PROPOSED REVISION TO THE CONTRACT
      If the coordinator considers that any revisions may be necessary to the contract, particularly to its project programme, these should be outlined, with explanations where they have not already been given earlier.


      My Comments

      The report requirements are quite straightforward and it should not be dificult to prepare. I will do this in early December) after returning from Japan). The main places I need input are highlighted in red above plwase do look at these. i.e. From each team I need
      • The 25 line (ie 250-300 words) summary from each postdoc (+ Markus).
      • A list of pubications, including abstracts (on disk not paper)... please include pre CODENET publications, for Heather's bibliography
      • Some kind of informal report on how the project is going (including everything you would like to see appear in the report structure given above).

          Return to: top, CODENET WWW Site Index Page

          Please send comments or corrections to Jeremy Young